Update Hotlinks in multistory model, Stories Vanish AC11

[Anonymous]

Hi folks,

I'm testing out AC11 before for my office, before installing it on our machines and moving our files over. And I've hit a glitch:

We've got an 5 story project, which we have separate PLNs for each floor, and then I've built a "Full building" model importing Hotlinks of all the stories. (We found this easier than Teamwork. Go ask Andyro). In AC10, it worked fine. Here's what happens in AC11:

1. Open file. All stories present. Decline updating Hotlinks. I confirm various stories are present.

2. I open HL mgr, and update all hotlinks, and then i have only 1 story. My hotlinks are still loaded, but not placed.

I suppose I can try merging it into a new file, but, anyone know something about 11's hotlinking that might help?

Thanks in advance.

-Nathan in New York

[Anonymous]

Nathan wrote:
Upon further testing, it seems that when the individual PLNs are saved as AC11 files, the stories remain intact on update.

So beware of nested modules from previous versions, they might bring your project to the ground.

Thanks for the note on placed drawings as well.

Perhaps that's why I haven't seen any problems. I haven't (and wouldn't) link up files from different versions. It seems like asking for trouble, especially when the hotlink and modules functions have been significantly upgraded.


Tom,

Were your problems with linking files between 10 and 11 or should we still be worried about this?

[Rick Thompson]

Matthew... the significance for me is I store all my "standard" details in one detail file. To me, I should be able to continue having it function (within reason of course). Now, I have to have 2 detail files with the same stored details since I can't convert 400+ files in one day ... actually 3 detail files, one for AC9 I need for file conversion. So, it can get messy quick. I think it should be something GS should have working without resorting to multiple identical files.

But, the bottom line is as you say.. you're asking for trouble... o'well.

[Anonymous]

Here a comparison no one will like:

In AutoCad, if you have an Xref from release 12, and you're working in release 14, it won't delete information from your 14 file when you update it.

[Anonymous]

Nathan wrote:
Here a comparison no one will like:

In AutoCad, if you have an Xref from release 12, and you're working in release 14, it won't delete information from your 14 file when you update it.

Is that a complex, multi-story, building model xREF?

ArchiCAD also updates xREFs (and other drawing types) from all sorts of sources without data loss.

[Anonymous]

Rick wrote:
Matthew... the significance for me is I store all my "standard" details in one detail file. To me, I should be able to continue having it function (within reason of course). Now, I have to have 2 detail files with the same stored details since I can't convert 400+ files in one day ... actually 3 detail files, one for AC9 I need for file conversion. So, it can get messy quick. I think it should be something GS should have working without resorting to multiple identical files.

But, the bottom line is as you say.. you're asking for trouble... o'well.

Do you also have the problem if you merge the detail module? It seems that might resolve the conversion problem.

Most firms I work with prefer to merge details into the project anyway as that allows customization as needed for the project, as well as the freedom to modify the standard details without compromising existing projects.

[Karl Ottenstein]

Nathan wrote:
So beware of nested modules from previous versions, they might bring your project to the ground.

The behavior described in this thread can only be called a 'killer' / unacceptable bug.

Even if there is some file technology difference, there should be a warning dialog and under no circustances should information be lost. That is the least that GS must do. In principal, there is no reason that they cannot properly convert and link in modules from any prior version.

Karl

[Rick Thompson]

Matthew wrote:
Do you also have the problem if you merge the detail module? It seems that might resolve the conversion problem.

Most firms I work with prefer to merge details into the project anyway as that allows customization as needed for the project, as well as the freedom to modify the standard details without compromising existing projects.

I simply place them on the sheet, and most were actually done quite awhile back and brought over into AC10. It is very easy to navigate to the linked detail file and drop them on the sheet, so no real need to merge. Also, I like them linked to a master since I reuse these plans over and over. That way I can change the master and change all uses of the detail. This was useful when most states adopted the IRC as standard, which required a few additional notes. I have never really fooled with modules.

So, I need to "compromise" all existing projects that detail goes in. I have evolved quite an extensive detail pln:)

[Anonymous]

Rick,

I forgot for a moment that your practice is different than most. Naturally the merge/unlink option doesn't work for you.

Karl,

You are right of course that this is a major, killer bug. I hope I didn't come off as too much of an apologist for GS. I am very concerned for the viability of the module functions and just a little embarrassed that I didn't turn this up during the beta.

[Karl Ottenstein]

Matthew wrote:
Karl,

You are right of course that this is a major, killer bug. I hope I didn't come off as too much of an apologist for GS. I am very concerned for the viability of the module functions and just a little embarrassed that I didn't turn this up during the beta.

Not just you, Matthew, but the feeling of the thread seemed like one of acceptance and work-around, implying that this is what is to be expected from software quality control at GS. I just wanted to remove any doubt that IMHO this is something that GS must address in the first hotfix.

None of us could test everything in the beta...and of course, we were not able to test the final release version...so no need to feel embarassed. 😉 Interestingly, most of us in this thread were there...

Karl